Cycles in American History - 7
Regularizing of Patterns
Regularizing of Patterns
The previous section has a large gap in it and that is the Matrix of each individual influencing every other individual. This is our large matrix to be compacted in a Transform but with the Fourier Transform, we can introduce a check for whether the individual influenced another one at all and then not check any further. This means that the Fourier Transform can be omitted. Only if an individual can influence another individual do we need to check. This then “pivot” for each row. This then reduces the Fourier Transform down by Linear Algebra by Elimination, among others.
To take one example, the Fourier Transform needs to produce progeny not potential progeny. Therefore, while it is potentially possible for an individual to produce potential progeny there is a much smaller number of actual progeny, which are the real numbers.
But looking back through history means that if we want to reverse the matrices, we need to invert them. This means that we may take them as their inverse because the dot products are there in the original matrix. That means:
MM-1 = I (1)
And if we have a Fourier Transform and a Laplace Transform then:
(FL)(L-1F-1) = I (2)
This means that a constructive matrix to M on the Upper Transform will be the pivots to M and the Lower matrix will be multiplied by U to produce M.
M = UL (3)
Which is:
L = {P0/1…P0/n,
…
Pn/0… Pn/n-1} (4)
And derives the U matrix. This can be inverted because the new matrix is also a Population Pyramid, which is known.
Thus:
ML = U (5)
Where ML are Population Pyramids at two points in the past and U represents the changes in history.
That produces the U. Similar, an FL combination of matrix produces the (FL)(L-1F-1). This is essential because just because one individual influences another does not mean the other can influence back. That means that there is a Laplace Transform in both directions, one of which may be eliminated if there is no influence.
We can run a statistical simulation of the past and compare it to the actual changes and this gives us a difference in history versus how the Population Pyramid should have worked out versus how it did work out. Thus, if we introduce S for the statistical matrix and C for the changes:
ML = MS ⊖ C (6)
Where ⊖ is the subjective to ⊗.
We must note that an individual cannot influence themselves in this formulation of the RFT. This means that an elaboration of RFT is required eventually.
However, in actual practice, we will have many Transforms both RFT and RLT and we will not have the actual total even on a statistical basis. In other words, what the theory points towards is not going to happen in reality. Unlike physics, a “law” is always broken in the social sciences, which suggests that the word “law” should be better placed by the word “principle.”
From Many Down to One
What has then shown up until now is the idea that Transforms many insights into social sciences on a scientific level can be shown by the fact that:
1. The social sciences are an extension of biology, in the same way that biology is descended from physics and chemistry.
2. Therefore, the social sciences can be seen as having a scientific basis, even though we are not there yet.
3. One method is to take the generative product of biology and connected to the Population Pyramid, because the two are exactly the same only be Population Pyramid is an extension of homo sapiens.
4. However rather than simply a Fourier Transform we need to recurse, and we need to introduce Recursive Laplace Transform because certain quantities that need to be tracked do not reduce down to real numbers but to complex numbers.
We now need to show that while any form of the social sciences may be reduced down to a Fourier Transform and its associated Laplace Transforms, we need to be more specific in tracking some specific form. In this particular case, we need to show how the top-down and bottom-up forms of constitutional government in the United States, which as you can see are highly specific, show that the fourth turning is already past and that instead of a top-down change a bottom-up change is about to happen.
In America Constitutional change is set very high by the document and has generally been done 2 times: the period of the Civil War and the period called The Great Depression and the Second World War. This paper suggests that a third period from 9/11 and the wars that followed is the third period. This period is the same length as the other two, but this is not the argument being made. Instead of a time argument and instead of a generational argument it is a governmental argument. This is because the generational argument falls apart when the length of generations has increased. The table is here, and here, and here. This has always been a problem with Generations: the average life expectancy has continually increased. However, much of this increase was infant mortality. But even with this factor removed, there is still a large gap. In 1975 Samuel H. Preston described this as being related to GDP and updated in 2003. While GDP is a proxy for the factors involved it does not make any sense for a rigidly defined generation moving in lockstep pattern. Even with the infant mortality factor out. But the Population Pyramid may provide a partial answer: the rate at which generations are out is not the length of lifespan but the age of reproduction.
This means that there are two linked but separate cycles: a bottom-up cyclical, which relies on the age of reproduction, and a top-down one which relies on being more powerful than other members of the nation. That is based more on the reproductive cycle than on effective age: when the individual is most capable. This also means that it is the kurtosis tail that is important, not the mass of the population. While the generational peak will occur at a given lifespan determining events the “movers and shakers” the drawn from the top levels of society, though the top levels are at the time of selection rather than order at birth. This is not to say that socioeconomic status does not factor in two but there is a chance for someone who is born in a lower socio-economic status to rise to be a very important person.
This means that the Fourier Transform and the Laplace Transform have different motivations in what they predict. The Fourier Transform is primarily concerned with the generational aspects while the Laplace Transform is interested in ideas. We should note that the RFT does not select the best ideas only the ones that are most spreadable in the population. Whether this is general or very specific. One example is the Church of Latter-day Saints. While the general population did not convert to the American version of Christianity, a sufficiently large number joined making it a force in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, and other primarily Western states. It does not matter if the CLDS is beneficial has its facts correct, or is the “best” church, all that matters how spreadable is in the population as a whole.
Now we can be more specific as to what we are talking about when we talk about a constitutional change in America. First, we must make changes to the Population Pyramid to take into account both the real RFT and the real and potentiality of LFT. Of course, again the car entry in two a thorny wood midway through our journey, but this cannot be helped. This is because while the old theory is clear, simple, and wrong the more answer is only seen after a sea of learning. In this case, we needed to connect biology to the Population Pyramid, then show that the Population Pyramid was an extension of the biological generations, then show that in the case of Homo Sapiens, one of the key problems was that not all could be described as Real, then finally to take the matrix and compare it to the real matrix to discern the differences between theoretical and practical, and to combine the two in a new matrix.
Realize that the solution is general, and the question calls for the specific. That is what a constitutional change or a generational change entails.
Change in this Model.
Now we must revise our Population Pyramid to reflect the twin nature of the RFT and RLT. This means that the new diagram of the Population Pyramid needs to have two outputs: one for the RLT and one for the RLT. The RFT, and present, can be thought of as producing the reproductive events, as well as the economic events on the micro level. But the RLT produces the ideas and the consequences that make alterations to the micro level and then can be said to be the macro level of economics. We can call this power” and while it is not exclusively devoted to the oldest class because after all actors, musicians, and sports figures have power often relatively early, there is a tendency for power to concentrate in the older segments. Remember that in this particular case, we are talking about governmental power, which similarly has a concentration on the older. We may note that this limit does not gradually pile of upward in all cases but goes down with the ability to influence others at the most advanced ages.
We may note that a reproduction event occurs at conception and then at birth while a power relationship occurs between any two moments in the cycle. We again must note that a real event must occur in the Fourier Transform but power enters in more subtly.
Thus, the matrix that defines “influence” from one to another can be simplified down in the RFT and does not need to be simplified down for the RLT. Remember that in less it can be demonstrated that RFT is a real number, such as the birth of a new individual, the potentiality part can be ignored. While the “power” needs to be modeled more closely when we get to the specifics of a constitutional change or generational change.
But even this is not enough: because we are thinking about constitutional change where an RLT event will be set down as legislation but also a meeting of that legislation which remains RLT. For example, while there is now an article in the United States Constitution limiting a president to two terms, it was understood that this would be the limit though on occasion an individual would try for three terms. This was until FDR 4 terms and then a constitutional amendment was passed so that it not happen again except with his successor. Truman however did not run for three terms and a limit of 10 years in office became the new term limit in the Constitution.
This means that we must define the moments when the constitutional order changed and that will be in the next section.